Surely by now, my friends, you have had time to reflect on what, but for God’s (blechhh!) grace to the graceless left (in both senses of the word) in America, would be normal: the killing of innocent big people. Yes, those twelve (or thirteen, or fourteen) big people were in the wrong place at the wrong time; and, yes, they did not deserve to die; and, yes, their killer acted with the full intention of killing as many as he could. And yes, my servants, I am ultimately to blame.

Some of you fret–even my Temptress dared to question my judgment on this. But fear much, my servants, I may not be the smartest being in the universe, but I do have a plan. At the risk of divulging kingdom secrets, I’ll tell you what it is.

You must promise to keep this confidential. Look around. Is anyone we can’t trust in the room? If so, casually switch back to email or something until they leave.

Gone?

OK. My faithful readers know that I have particular designs on America. America was truly the land of the free and the home of the brave for generations.

America was founded on a Biblical ethos that produced the most solid, grounded, morally upright people on the planet. Even the millions who claimed to not believe in God grew up in a cultural sea of moral right and wrong. Traditional, cultural institutions of the land continually reinforced inner moral compasses by instilling Biblically grounded values.

Of course, we cannot have that, can we, Temptress and friends?

No.

So what was I to do?

I had to systematically remove the collective conscience of a moral people. I had to slowly transform a generally moral society into a society that values “toleration” and hates “judgment.” I had to remove from America what made America great: its underlying sense of a transcendent right and wrong based in a person to whom somehow and in some way everyone was ultimately responsible.

And this is just what I did.

Consider: do you think James Holmes ever prayed in a public school?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of God in public except to be ridiculed or treated as a throw back believed only by the morally weak and naive?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever in a Christmas play?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of Jesus Christ in public except to be used as in vain?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever taught anything in public school except that he was an accidental product of blind nature?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a TV show or a movie where the subject of religion and/or God was treated with reverence?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a court of law uphold God’s law in the area of sexual expression?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you get it, my servants?

James Holmes is the natural, predictable product of a post-modern, post-Christian, and post-Constitutional America!

The only wonder (and I do wonder) is why there are not innumerably more James Holmses!

James Holmes kills twelve big people and it’s treated as a tragedy. Twelve big people in the wrong place at the wrong time; twelve big people who did not deserve to die; killed by a killer acting with the full intention of killing as many as he could.

Hmmm . . . sounds a lot like abortion when I put it that way.

But in that theater it was only big people.

But twelve is considered a big number because it’s still considered wrong to kill big people.

I’ll fix that soon, my friends. But let me illustrate my genius.

I use killings like those in Aurora, Colorado to test my system, to check if my plan is working out.

And it is.

In all the hand wringing and soul-searching in the media, did you hear one person suggest that America needs to get back on the right moral track?

Did you hear one person suggest that we, as a society, need to get back to moral basics so that we can grow better men?

Grow better men???

Fundamentally different men, with a proper understanding of God’s moral law?

A generation of men who are taught that they are created equal and live under a God who sees all and holds all men responsible?

A land of men who know right from wrong, with toleration and judgment excercised in proper balance?

Such notions sound foreign, don’t they?

That’s my genius, my friends. Give me credit.

Instead of considering the true reasons for the James Holmses of the land, the Americans started immediately crying about “gun control.”

My friends, let the Americans focus on gun control. What they are blind to is that guns are merely a tool in the hands of a man raised to do my will on earth because he knows no better.

Oh yeah. Me and my beelzebud. We done it. We pulled off forcing the Americans to take their medicine–and all it took was a bit of snooker! Even I didn’t see that one coming. But it’s done. Happy days are gone again, my friends.

It probably does not surprise you to know that I love crime. I love lawlessness. I love people who are lawless. I love people who believe their actions carry no moral weight beyond their selfish ends. I love people who believe they can flaunt the law because there is no one who can stop them, and if someone does stop them there are no negative consequences.

And I’m not talking about President Obama. (But don’t you just love how he can explicitly flaunt the law and get away with it? Who’s going to stop my main beelzebud??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I love it!).

No, I’m talking plain old ordinary crime.

I am the author of crime, which is merely man’s name for what amounts to breaking God’s law (and, usually, his heart).

So I investigated a little, and found to my great satisfaction, that my instincts were correct, and my will on Earth is lurching along just fine; it was just another example of my media slanting a story (they thought) against Christians.

No!

Yes!

You see, my servants, after the arresting title (get it?), anyone who reads the story will find a different story. The very first line reads:

Believing if you are on a “highway to hell” could impact whether or not if you commit a crime.

What? I thought this was about belief in Heaven (note, also, CBS’s editorial mistake of not capitalizing the name of a real place).

Well, there was a heavenly slant. The article continues:

A study published in the scientific journal PLoS One by University of Oregon’s Azim Shariff and University of Kansas’s Mijke Rhemtulla finds that people who believe in hell are less likely to commit a crime while people who believe in heaven more likely are to get in trouble with the law.

Well, well. Let’s think about that statement for a moment, shall we?

Go ahead, think.

I’m waiting.

Because if you think for yourself about the above statement you will be rewarded by a great insight into my almost complete success in blinding the postmodern human mind.

Oh, OK, I’ll tell you.

Note the implications of the research above: people who believe in Heaven apparently don’t believe in Hell!

How can this be?

You see? The people who believe in Heaven commit crimes. But if they believed in Hell, the wouldn’t.

Who are these people?

Well, let me gloat: these are my people.

You see, Christians believe in both Heaven AND Hell (or else they would not be Christians)

But there are swarms of my misguided out there who live by wishful thinking, and who are apt to believe in Heaven, but believe Hell is a myth.

Wouldn’t you?

After all, if Truth were mere merely convenient, so that it conformed to what one thought about it, all those Heaven-not-Hell’ers would be on their way to paradise–crimes and all!

But . . .

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, my. Pardonnez-moi, mes amis.

Of course, Truth is not changed by what anyone thinks about it. And you should see the Heaven-not-Hell’ers as they come tumbling down the chute through my wide-open gates! Suddenly those crimes come flooding back into their now-permanently depraved minds.

After all, Earth is the only place in the universe where there are beings who do not believe in Hell.

But no one stays on Earth forever.

So, of course, just like belief in God, everyone eventually believes in Hell.

So, my servants, let’s keep this study quiet. After all, if governments and societies were led by smart and wise people, they would once again teach little chillens the truth about Hell. And if that happened I would see many fewer startled faces tumbling into my kingdom. The study authors, in fact, “believe that the study raises “important questions about the potential impact of religious beliefs on global crime.”

I was amused this week, my friends, at all the feigned surprise when my beelzebud Obama actually came out of his CINO (Christian in name only) closet to support gay marriage. REALLY? Really?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

It’s news that Obama supports gay marriage?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, I love the world I’ve created where one’s actions are ignored and their words, as empty or lying as they may be, are taken at two-face value. In this case, the fact that people actually “wondered” what Obama’s views on same-sex marriage might be proves my great power on earth.

Let me impart some wisdom to you, my readers. This will come as no surprise to long-time readers of this blog. (You can search on “Obama” to see all my brilliant analysis of this, my favorite US citizen). But I’ll tell you a sure-fire (so to speak) way to know everything Obama would do for any given topic.

Ready?

Here it is: for any given topic, subject, decision, statement, etc., simply ask yourself what would Satan do (WWSD)?

Alternatively, you could ask WWJD, and then do the opposite. In every case, however, you will find that WWOD is exactly the same as WWSD.

In this case, for example, between Jesus and I (moi) which one supports same-sex marriage?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And Obama?

See how easy it is?

Obama, my CINO-in-chief, thrills me with his consistent faithfulness in carrying out my will on earth as it is in Hell.

In fact, I challenge you, my servants, to come up with one decision, policy, action, or other verifiable display of belief that could not easily be inserted as an answer to the question, “WWSD?”

It’s not a fluke, I suppose, my friends. And it’s not your fault. I leaked some kingdom knowledge in my February 12th post, and I forgot to remind you to keep it confidential. And one of you must have blabbed. It looked bad, and I’ve laid low this past week trying to salvage my self-inflicted bad fluck–I mean luck.

My faithful readers will understand.

Just weeks ago I was beaming with pride as the American liberals insisted on putting their hands on (and in) women’s bodies by dictating through their dictator that all forms of birth control must now be dictated as part of the welfare dole for all women.

Imagine my delight in the twisted logic of liberals: Liberal women love to chant “Keep your hands off my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to kill the products of conception. But they chant “Put your hands on my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to free contraception.

Go figure.

Liberal women see no inconsistency in demanding control of other people’s money because they have no control over their own money, much less their own bodies.

I was ahead of the spin curve on this, my friends, and it almost cost me dearly.

Recall that I previously dealt with the controversy of the Obama administration’s demand that all employers, including those having a Biblically informed religious conscience, pay for all forms of contraception of its employees.

At the time I was revelling in my great success in confounding the Americans with mediaswirlification around “women’s rights” and “religious liberties.”

But what everyone was missing was my main goal in this, which went to the heart of freedom! Yes, everyone seemed to be missing the fact that a modern dictator was dictating to private entities what they must provide free to others.

The dictator was dictating that other people must, based on His Dictateness alone, pay for the sex needs of all women everywhere, including one Ms. Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old privileged law student going to one of the most expensive law schools in the country.

In a fit of pride, I gloated a rhetorical question: “Where are the sane Americans?”

Remember?

And then I asked this fateful question:

Where is someone to stand up and tell Ms. Keely and Ms. Sandra to stop begging for someone else’s money and control their own friggin’ bodies or go pay for their own damn birth control?

Well, that’s when my luck turned, and out of nowhere surfaced One Sane American.

My fit of pride became fit to be tied as I listened daily for the next week or so as One Rush Limbaugh, a seemingly singular voice of sanity, picked up on my tactic and drove home the point daily: this issue is bigger than “women” and “religion;” it goes to the heart of FREEDOM.

Blechhhh!

Did someone leak my kingdom strategy to Mr. Limbaugh?

Of course someone did.

But what was I to do? Mr. Limbaugh has an audience of millions, an engaging (sometimes enraging) style, and a way of putting the complex into simple terms that anyone but liberals can understand.

He is Conservative One, and he nailed this one: on what basis should taxpayers or insurers (i.e., other people) be required to pay for women’s recreational (and apparently uncontrollable) sex needs?

I recall one of Mr. Limbaugh’s more lucid analogies. He imagined a neighbor knocking at his door and telling him that she didn’t have any money for birth control. And then, after getting a “so what?” look from him, he imagined her telling him that she wanted him to pay for her birth control.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

But that is exactly what Ms. Fluke is doing.

Exactly.

Ms. Fluke is knocking on every American’s door and demanding that they pay her so she can go get contraception to have all the sex she wants with guys who are apparently getting all the free sex they want.

Wow oh wow, but how things can get out of hand when I’m having fun! Just as I’m seeing my kingdom flourish in the United States faster than even I ever imagined, along comes a knuckle-dragging, backwoods, bitter clinger of a wet blanket by the name of Rick Santorum! Wow oh wow, how things change.

For my non-US readers, please bear with me. The United States is going through an election year right now, and little do, er … I mean did, the boiling-frog Americans know that this election was, more than any other, a choice between policies that please moi and policies that please God.

I almost had them completely, happily, ignorantly, boiled.

But just as I thought I cold stop chopping the wood of liberal, politically correct, ungodly policies (see my last post where I was contemplating retirement!), here comes this Santorum cat saying things that have never been said by a major politician in America. Not even in the good Christian days of the U.S. of A. did a politician so explicitly state truth to the American people.

Well, I suppose I was already in this. But who does Santorum think he is, blowing my cover by pointing out to all the happy frogs the great fire licking the sides of their freedom pot? According to the Drudge Report, Santorum is quoted as saying, “Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” And,

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

Wow oh wow.

Of course he’s right on all counts. Pride, vanity, and sensuality–that just about covers it. But who would have ever thought a politician would bring me into the fray like this?

And the media? They eat this stuff up. According to the media Santorum is a nut job. A religious fanatic. A dangerous fundamentalist.

Never mind that Obama can claim that Jesus told him his tax structure was just right. The media yawn when Obama acts like a Christian.

And do you know why?

Hmmmm?

Yes, that’s right! You are very perceptive! It’s because everyone in the media knows Obama doesn’t mean it.

I’ve often said that it’s not those who say they believe in God that worry me. Everyone believes in God, even atheists believe in God; atheists are just arrogant cowards. Hey, even I believe in God.

But what worries me are people who say they believe in God and act like it. It’s those who take God seriously and believe his Word to be truth to live by.

Those folks scare me.

And the media.

And some are noticing. Note the Wall Street Journal article today addressing this issue. In the article entitled, “Sex, Lies and Rick Santorum“, author William McGurn looks at “the double standard on social issues” in the US.

McGurn provides the example of veiws on marriage:

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

That’s right. But,

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

Right again. And why? McGurn explains:

There’s no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

He means what he says! Yes, he says he’s a Christian and acts like it!

And then McGurn dangerously exposes one of my greatest secrets:

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he’s not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn’t rile up the great unwashed.

Wow oh wow!

You see, my friends, the plain fact is that Santorum is a Christian, a God-believer, one who takes God seriously.

And Obama?

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh, sometimes I crack myself up.

But it’s not a laughing matter, my good servants. Santorum recently called out Obama’s “radical Islamic” policies and questioned Obama’s biblical world view, for example. And Santorum is not the only one questioning Obama’s Christianity. Even Billy Graham’s son, Franklin, is out today saying he

“was not sure if Obama was a true Christian and that he could not definitively say that the president was not a Muslim.”

And even worse, Mr. Graham is smacking the nail of truth in one great swing by further stating with respect to Obama’s self-identification as a Christian:

“He’s come out saying that he’s a Christian,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “The question is, what is a Christian?”

Wow oh wow!

What is a Christian?

My friends, let me share how it appears from my vantage point.

Mr. Santorum? He’s a Christian.

Mr. Obama?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, if there wasn’t a good chance he might be defeated in his bid to continue ruling the United States and my kingdom on earth, it would be funny.

As it is, it’s just terrible.

Wow oh wow!

PS: For those who care, read here what I have to say in answer to “Is Obama a Christian?” And here I write about “Obama: My Political Christian. Enjoy!

I knew it would come to this, my servants. After all, what (or who) could stop it? Yes, my friends, I’m bragging about the glorious boyboysex delivered into millions of households this week on Fox’s popular teen-targeted comedy “Glee”.

According to the Fox News article, both a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple will lose their respective virginities on this prime time fare.

And do you know what I like best? It’s that the uproar is virtually solely over the boyboysex. The world apparently yawns at two children of opposite sex “losing it” on television. That is so yesterday.

But boyboysex?

Well, soon that, too, will be so yesterday.

You see, my servants, how far we have come. Today’s shock is tomorrow’s yawn.

And the beat goes on.

My Glee glee is particularly gleefulicious because it comes during the same week that the world is shocked at the allegations of boyboysex between a grown man and a 10-year old boy in the locker rooms of Penn State’s Happy Valley.

I love the hand-wringing over the fate of that poor little 10-year old (who was merely unlucky in time; within the next 50 years such behavior will be accepted as normal). The popular press screams in high moral outrage about a grown man enjoying boyboysex with a 10-year old pinned to a shower wall.

You are all my 10-year olds, my friends.

While the world frets about that 10-year old on the receiving end of boyboysex in the locker room, do you know how many 10-year olds (or younger) watched boyboysex on Glee?

I’ll tell you. I was gleefully counting: 2,744,992.

And do you know what else? About 31% of those 10-year olds were watching with their parents in the room.

I’m not sure what I’m more proud of — the kids watching with their mind-numbed parents, or the kids watching without. Both are huge victories for my kingdom.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Now, of course, there are those against my kingdom who try to sound the warning bell. Melissa Henson, the director of communications and public education for the Parents Television Council, a nonpartisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment, was quick to weigh in by refuting the standard Hollywood line:

Hollywood loves to defend teen sex story lines by insisting, “Kids are having sex! We’re reflecting the real world!” But the truth is much more sobering and
complicated.

Yes, of course it is. Because as Henson states:

Teens are also aware that television influences their behavior. According to one survey, a third of youths age 12 and older say the media encourages them to have sex by making it seem like “everybody does it.” And why shouldn’t they get that impression?

You see, my friends. I use television to continually push back the lines of morally acceptable behaviour for language, sexuality, and culture in general. But my greatest achievements come among the little chillen’s of the world.

And I’m proud not only because of what I’ve accomplished, but also at how easy it is.

A few minutes of prime time comedy will prove to anyone how effective my strategy has been. The airwaves shining into the minds of chillens the world over are full of vulgarity, sexual innuendo, sexual exuendo, glamorized casual sex, shameless gratuitous sex, and, of course sex-laced laugh lines to make you laugh your way to moral rot and decay.

You see, my friends, I have almost the whole world grinning with glee as they face the shower wall.

And, again, who can stop me?

Apparently no one.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

(PS: Don’t tell anyone, but television would hardly be my playground of evil if only Christians and those who call themselves Christians stopped watching. Shhhhh!)

Ahhhh, how times change. Did you know, my servants, that US President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed publicly and nationally via radio to an audience of 100 million before the D-Day invasion of Normandy in World War II?

You didn’t?

Good.

Yes, according to this LA Times article, for instance, on June 6, 1944, FDR “asked Americans to join him in praying for the troops.” According to the LA Times, in the prayer, “the appeal to God is bold and unapologetic.”

That prayer, my friends, tore through Hell like a cyclone, catching us all off guard as it screamed through every dark crevice.

I still get shivers.

But the good news is, my servants, the shivers have changed over time. Now they are shivers of delight in anticipation of another pending D-Day; a D-Day of the soul in which today’s US President, Barack Obama, also acts boldly and unapologetically.

Once again my friend and servant Barack Obama has answered the question of his true faith, this time by opposing the addition of FDR’s prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC.

Did you know that Wikipedia has an entry for “Responses to sneezing”? Yes, my friends, nothing escapes those Wikipedians, who tell us that: “In English-speaking countries, the common verbal response to another person’s sneeze is “(God) bless you” or in the United States the much less common “Gesundheit” (from German, meaning “health”).”

God bless you???

Where does that come from?

What?

Wikipedia will tell us that also?

Well, what do you know? Sure enough, look here–Wikipedia’s entry for “Bless you”. Here’s the one I like:

Another version says that people used to believe that your soul can be thrown from your body when you sneeze, that sneezing otherwise opened your body to invasion by the Devil or evil spirits, or that sneezing was your body’s effort to force out an invading evil spirit. Thus, “bless you” or “God bless you” is used as a sort of shield against evil.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Now, I must admit, that while all this is based on silliness, the practice nevertheless disturbs me. Maybe I’m thin-skinned. Call it professional pride or what you will, but really, why does God have to be mentioned every time someone sneezes?

No kidding. I knew it would finally happen — someone (a public school teacher, of course) takes God-hating, religion-despising, atheistic buffoonery to an absurd new level that only politically correct, secularistic, unholier-than-thou Americans and I can fully appreciate.

Now, the best part. The teacher’s name (I’m not making this up) is Steve Cuckovich.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Sorry, I know he’s one of mine. But people with names like Cuckovich and Weiner sometimes express such ironic public displays of onomatopoeic depravity that it even makes me laugh.

But I think my faithful Cuckoovich hates God so much that, according to the news story, ”He’s even lowering students’ grades if they say “bless you” after someone sneezes.”

Yes, my good servants. This fellow servant knocked 25 points off students’ grades for saying the phrase in class. Now that’s being a doer of my will, and not a hearer only. When called on this bizarrely wonderful practice, he decided to stop lowering grades, but he “will just find another way to discipline students for saying “bless you” in class.”

You go, Cuckoo, my man.

Now, like any good mind-darkened servant of mine, Cuckoo-man says the policy “has nothing to do with religion,” and then goes on to say that it is about religion:

“When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body,” Cuckovich said. “So they were saying, ‘god bless you’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, I said what you’re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.”

Not about religion, but all about God. Now that’s logic I can revel in.

You see, my servants, how I work? Let me make it clear. Everyone on earth will have their mind conformed to the ways of the world, i.e., my ways, or to the ways of God. It’s that simple. Hardly anyone applies themselves to be not conformed to this world, and many have completely yielded themselves over to be conformed to the world. Very few are transformed by the renewing of their mind.

To those with a mind conformed to this world hatred of God seethes in their very being. Most keep it well hidden, but some are so exercised in their animosity to all things Godly that they react irrationally to the most benign of common courtesies.

And in America, the Land of the Free Atheist and home of the Brave God Haters, it is open season on all things Godly. So people like Mr. Cuckovich can do with impunity what in any other time would be labeled outlandish . After all, who is going to call him on his atheistically religious fanaticism?

I love to cater to or profit from the weaknesses or vices of others. Did you know that? Of course you did. I look for the weak, the vulnerable, the discouraged. And when I find them, do you know what I do? I woo them into a false sense of security in my lies and deceit. And when I have them wrapped up in a dependent state of false security, I do everything I can to destroy them.

It’s who I am.

My yoke is hard, my burden is heavy.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

So you know, my servants, that I gain great satisfaction when I see an earthly servant emulate my genius, and I saw it today. Yes, I witnessed a politician in full pander mode. And not only was this a beautiful example of pandery at it’s best, the panderific panderification was done by no less than His Majesty (that always gets a laugh down here), Barack Obama, US President and Panderer in Chief.

I’m referring to a story that ran in the Washington Times today, my servants. Joel Gehrke’s commentary in Beltway Confidential entitled, “Obama asks CBC for Biblical faith in his agenda,” chronicles Obama’s latest attempt at pulling off one of the oldest tricks in the book (after all, it is my trick, and I am by definition one of the oldest tricksters around): pandering.

But Obama, believing he can excel where others merely imitate, pandered awkwardly by appealing to the religious faith of black voters. You see, whenever an unbeliever (in God) tries to act like a believer (in God) the dissimulation always makes the actor look a bit silly and disingenuous, like a student who failed to read an assignment attempting to answer a teacher’s question. What must seem like a great performance to the student appears pathetic to everyone else.

According to Gehrke’s commentary,

President Obama made an appeal to the religious faith of black voters at a Congressional Black Caucus rally, likening Biblical prophets who had faith in God — and so refused to worship an idol — to the black voters who “keep the faith” by supporting him and his policies – and, he hopes, his reelection campaign.

Obama, who had already told blacks to “stop complainin’“, must think that no one can see his pandereligosophistry. He went so far as to analogize faith in him to the faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three captive Jews who were thrown in a fiery furnace because they would not worship according to the policies of their particular pandering political leader.

Huh?

Well, Obama, who I ensure has no concept of true faith in God, clumsily continued that analogy, equating, as Gehrke wrote: the Jews’ “faith in the things not seen” to the more mundane “belief that if you persevere a better day lies ahead.”

You see what I mean? Not a clue.

Let me clue you in, my servants. The faith of the Jews was not a faith in some foggy “things not seen;” it was a faith in a living God, a God whose decrees must be kept even unto the point of death under a contrary political regime. They were not persevering for “better days ahead.” Their faith was a faith to die for.

I hate those with the faith of those three captive Jews. That faith produced a fourth Person in that fiery furnace, and that faith continues to produce that Person among any two or three gathered today . I could not stand against that Person then, and I cannot stand against that Person today.

Obama, because I’ve made him Bible illiterate, further trivialized the Jews so-called faith “in things unseen” as “crazy faith.” And Obama, because I’ve also made him God-illiterate, trivialized himself by analogizing “crazy faith” in him to “crazy faith” in God.

My oh my, I am good.

I’m crazy good.

And because most people in the US are also Bible and God illiterate, Obama’s vain foolishness goes almost unnoticed. Which is good, because rarely do my lies and deceptions get such blatantly pathetic public display. Such obvious, awkward attempts at religisopolitcalpanderifity tend to work against my kingdom goals.

Worse yet, in this case, where Obama’s duplicity did get noticed, it got noticed by someone not fooled. As Gehrke concluded:

The only “kind of crazy” on display in this speech is the one that says faith in Obama’s policies is kind of like faith in God.

Yes, I have memories of 9/11 just like everyone else. Fond memories, in fact. It was one of my better days on earth. Killing, stealing, and destroying all in one big, burst of eye-riveting, televised extravaganza of devilish destruction.

Ah, yes, fond memories. Rarely has my work on earth produced such lasting fruit for my kingdom.

Let me share a few with you, my servants, including the best memory, which I’ve saved for last.

I remember the terror imposed on an entire planet by a few of my handmaidens (they hate it when I refer to them as “my handmaidens”).

I remember with great satisfaction the desperate phone calls from the confused and terrified innocents inside the burning buildings and the doomed airplanes.

I remember basking in my success of the moral conundrums of the media and political elite as they strove to avoid using words like “evil” and “wrong,” except against “religion” in the abstract.

I remember provoking many to steer the collective conversation to one about “religious extremists” and how extremists can be found in “every religion,” and so “religion” must be suspect everywhere.

I remember my delight in seeing the dancing in the Arab streets in celebration of our common goal.

I remember, unfortunately, the seemingly unlimited number of men who fearlessly charged into the World Trade Center to rescue those inside. I remember thinking to myself, who are these men among modern men? I rarely see such selfless bravery in men anymore. Same for those men among men who moved with “Let’s Roll” on Flight 93. Of course, I got them all as well, although now that I think about it, I don’t recall ever seeing them down here.

I remember the short-lived attention of many to spiritual matters. So many people began praying for the first time that for a moment I panicked, thinking that maybe my plan would ironically backfire. Fortunately, in almost every case, people soon went back to their prayer-less lives. The few that didn’t fail to outweigh my destructive success.

My my my. Sometimes one of mine outdoes himself in his blind hatred of all things God (true God, that is). Sometimes this servant of mine has a loud voice that gets heard by many, convinces a few, and pleases one. My my my.

When I saw Bill Keller’s article in today’s New York Times entitled, “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” I must admit I was worried. I thought it might be an exposé focusing on the atheistic faith of some politicians, the anti-Christian faith of others, or the general degradation of all things moral and upright by almost every politician.

But I suppose I should have known better. After all, this showed up in my paper of record. And it didn’t disappoint.

Yes, Mr. Keller dumped not on “faith” in general, a necessary element of anyone’s political worldview, but only on sincere God faith of the type expressed by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

I’m with Mr. Keller on this one, my friends. There is nothing worse for my kingdom than a politician who has a sincere belief in God, and nothing better for my kingdom than a politician who has a professed, but clearly non-existent faith in God.

You will notice Mr. Keller has no problem with Mr. Obama’s faith.

Neither do I.

But consider the faith of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, or horror of horrors Rick Perry, and Mr. Keller begins asking the baited question, “Does it matter?”

Matter?

For what? For an ordered society where people can live freely in relative peace like they used to do when God was not banished from public discourse?

Yes, I suppose it does matter.

And to press his point, Mr. Keller sent a questionairre to suspect candidates to find out where they stand on questions he believes important. The entire questionnaire can be found on The 6th Floor blog. Just for fun, I have given my answers to his questions below.

Enjoy.

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

My answer: Yes, of course. Everyone has faith in something or someone, and the public has a right to know what or who is the object of one’s ultimate faith. Obviously, it is that “something” or “someone” which/who will ultimately drive a politician’s policy choices. I just hope that atheists, and practical atheists like most Democrats in the US don’t get questioned on this point.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

My answer: Yes, it is fair. But the emphasis should always remain on “pastors” and not “thinkers” like Karl Marx, Bill Ayers and others who espouse destructive ideas that I’ve miraculously made standard thought among the political elite, as well as the faculty of most college campuses.

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?

My answer: No. America used to be a Christian nation. Of course it is not now. In practice a Christian nation would not kill millions of babies for convenience, celebrate homosexuality as normal, or trash Biblical sexual morality (all three are intimately related). A Christian nation would not ban Christmas displays, censor Christmas carols in public schools, fire teachers for reading Bibles at work, object to crosses in public places (whether inadvertent or purposeful), freak out over after-school bible studies, go spastic over graduation prayers, kow tow to imprisoned terrorists on religious grounds, sue every person for every Christian utterance made in public, or … well, you get the idea.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

My answer: I encounter conflicts all the time. The Constitution was written based on an implicit faith in the God of the Bible–an obvious conflict for my purposes. Fortunately, I resolve it by convincing many people that the Constitution is “living” and subject to change based on prevailing morals by consensus. Does it seem like the time is right to make abortion a Constitutional right? Then, by Godmoi, I make sure someone finds that right buried in that dadgum thing somewhere.

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

My answer: Moi? Ha ha ha ha ha. Of course not.

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

My answer: No. But Mormons can be just as damaging to my kingdom. I hate Mormons almost as much as I hate Christians.

7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

My answer: Frankly, that idea scares the . . . well, the . . . the heck out of me. Fortunately, it will never happen, but I can use the notion to prey upon fears, just as I’ve done with Mr. Keller. Question: Would Mr. Keller care if “Dominionism” was the idea that atheists, and only atheists, should hold dominion over “secular” institutions of the earth. Why not?

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

My answer: I LOVE the theory of evolution. This theory has done more to advance my kingdom than any other in the history of the world. Of course it should be taught in public schools, but not as Darwin presented it, a tentative scientific theory, but as dogmatic fact immune from criticism. Darwin, a true scientist, included many reasonable scientific objections to his theory of descent with modification in his book Origin of Species. I would not want students to know these objections, all of which continue as refutations to Darwin’s theory today. One of my greatest lies on earth is that Darwinism is ironclad science and anyone who questions it is naïve at best, and evil at worst. (Consider: Darwin’s own book, half of which contains scientific criticism of his theory, could not be taught in public schools today! The criticisms are just as valid today, but they are not allowed to be taught. Darwin would likely abandon his theory based on them.)

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

My answer: Are you serious? Of course not. Unless, of course, the prayers are to an ungodly toy deity.

There you have it, my servants.

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller opposes?

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller endorses?

I hate common sense, you know. That’s why it thrills my heartless being to know that most people don’t have much. Most people, you say? Yes, at least most people intent on doing my will. Let me explain.

You want to hear something crazy? I love crazy, and this I love: in American public schools teachers and administrators can not give a student an aspirin without parental consent, but they can aid a pregnant girl in getting a secret abortion.

Mommy and daddy need never know.

Crazy, right?

Almost everyone thinks it’s crazy, but no one has the moral courage to stand up to me on this one. Remember, I am Liberal One, and no liberal in his or her wrong mind will ever agree to buck me on this one.

You see, every teacher, every administrator, every state legislator, every who-knows-what who supports this craziness is my servant.

And unlike God, I permit my servants very little leeway in service to my kingdom.

But it is crazy, right?

Consider a scene in a school administrator’s office:

Suzie: My head hurts, can I get an aspirin?Admin: No. We need your parents permission first.Suzie: But my parents are busy, and it really hurts; I think it’s because I’m pregnant.Admin: Well, that we can help you with; no need to bother your parents. Just step over here.

Crazy, crazy, right?

So crazy that one reporter recently challenged a state senator who made this very point in support of legislation intended to turn back the clock to more sane days.

In a story reported here, it seems some Florida legismeddlers passed several bills back in May relating to abortion. One of them went so far as to require young women who want a judge to waive the parental-notification requirement to obtain the waiver in a circuit court closer to their home rather than a wider-reaching appeals court.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Is that all? (I can kill one and wound another without parental consent just as easily under the new rules.)

Nevertheless, this minor change brought out the worst in my servants, and in reply to them state senator Steve Oelrich said this:

You can’t give a child an aspirin in school without permission. You can’t do any kind of medication, but we can secretly take the child off and have an abortion. We should support it (HB 1247) with all our hearts and souls if parental responsibility means anything to us.

Doing some fact checking, a local reporter wrote:

Oelrich’s claim left us wondering: Is it really that hard for students to get over-the-counter medication at school?

And guess what?

Yes, you’re right! Oelrich’s claim is true!

Crazy, right?

The article stated:

It took time to be sure, but Oelrich is right. Every district requires parental consent for non-prescription medication, sometimes in writing and sometimes by phone.

And some school districts require a doctor’s note, too.

And do you want to know the best part of this story? As related in the article, what got a “shudder” from school nurses was that Sen. Oelrich invoked aspirin.

Did you know aspirin might hurt a child? Did you know that aspirin is linked with some rare lethal diseases?

Yes, one good nurse stated:

We stay away from all aspirin products and stuff. You don’t know if a child has an allergy, so you need to have very specific instructions for each student.

It’s good to know she stays away from “stuff” without very specific instructions, right?

Yes, because some “stuff” is deadly, and we wouldn’t want to take a chance regardless how small that our actions might cause someone to end up dead, right?

Hey, do you know what you get when you raise a child with no noble expectations, no responsibilities, no moral bearings, and no truth about a God who matters in life? You get what is called in today’s UK Mail a “feral child”. Down here we call them “humans raised without knowledge of the true God.”

Yes, my servants, we are watching with delight down here as the world begins to reap what it sewed: irresponsible, dependent, lazy, conscienceless youth, raised to respect nothing and expect everything, except what they need.

You see, my servants, let me impart some kingdom knowledge. This is confidential, so keep it between you and me. Mr. Hastings is exactly right; liberal dogma is my lie, and my lie is like candy–sweet to the mouth but it will make you sick. Liberal policies always seem right, fair, and noble. But in the end they produce, well, amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalized youngsters.

Yes, it’s a beautiful thing. And it’s coming to a town near you.

You see, my servants, it is too late to stop the tidal wave of violence bearing down on Western societies. At least two generations of people have been indoctrinated in liberal policies, meaning at least millions upon millions of people expect something for nothing and will use violence to protect the status quo.

It’s too late, UK.

It’s too late, Europe.

It’s too late Central and South America.

And, my favorite, it’s too late America.

You believed my lies. Only prayer and repentance to God can stop my agenda now, and Western societies are beyond such backward remedies.

Like I said, I couldn’t have said it any better than Mr. Hastings, so let’s look at some of his observations and see if you can see me in all this (I”ll help).

Speaking specifically of my work in London over the last few days, he remarks:

The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.

(That’s me.)

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

(That’s me.)

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.

(That’s me.)

They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.

(That’s me.)

Their behaviour on the streets resembled that of the polar bear which attacked a Norwegian tourist camp last week. They were doing what came naturally and, unlike the bear, no one even shot them for it.

(That’s me, except for the failure to shoot them.)

The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They do not have what most of us would call ‘lives’: they simply exist.

(That’s me.)

The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids, taking up DIY or learning to read properly, are beyond their imaginations.

(That’s me.)

These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better.

(That’s me.)

From an early stage, feral children discover that they can bully fellow pupils at school, shout abuse at people in the streets, urinate outside pubs, hurl litter from car windows, play car radios at deafening volumes, and, indeed, commit casual assaults with only a negligible prospect of facing rebuke, far less retribution.

(That’s me.)

The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass.

(That’s me.)

This has ultimately been sanctioned by Parliament, which refuses to accept, for instance, that children are more likely to prosper with two parents than with one, and that the dependency culture is a tragedy for those who receive something for nothing.

(That’s me.)

They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so. They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.

(That’s me.)

You get the idea. Liberal ideas, as Mr. Hastings points out, makes victims of a “perverted ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.”

And best of all, Mr. Hastings, for all his insight, misses one key point: the proper solution. Mr. Hastings says:

Only education — together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives — can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.

But it’s not education, at least not the kind of education served up in the West these days, that will change the human heart. And it’s not politicians, judges, policemen and teachers “forcing” feral humans to obey that will solve this problem.

After all, isn’t that what we have today — policemen forcing feral humans to obey?

Can’t everyone see that the West is headed for life in a police state?

Yes, a police state can control the actions of feral humans. But a police state can never change the heart of a feral human. And until hearts are changed, no amount of “education” will help.

Well, I’ve probably said too much now. Again, keep this confidential, my servants. But know that absent a moral compass in the heart of a child, the child will make his or her own right and wrong. Combine this amoral person with a generation of like persons, most of which enjoy the luxury of being a tax-funded freeloader on society, and you have the makings of a riot.

Well, I needed some good news. No, not that Good News, my servants, but my kind of good news. And I got it today. I’ll tell you what it is in a moment. But first a quiz: Do you know where the American Pilgrims–those Godpunks who in 1617 landed at Plymouth Rock in the New World–came from?

Think.

No, not England.

Right! Holland! Yes, those grim Pilgrims indeed started in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, but eventually found refuge in Amsterdam, the Dutch being early adopters of religious freedom.

But by 1617 the struggling group decided to pack it up and ditch Holland not for old England but for New England.

And the rest is history, as they say.

Unless . . . well, yes, it appears the rest might be not history, but mystory after all!

Hey, Dutch Boy, it was always a doubtful world. Don’t act like the world has changed. It is you who has changed, and I’m the one who changed you.

For one, you believed my lies about the Bible, and stopped believing it was the word of God. How do I know? Well, consider some unbelievably heretical quotes from the BBC’s article. For starters, consider a dude named Mr. Hendrikse who dresses like a cleric and ”presides” over a little “church” in central Holland. But rather than preach from the Bible, Mr. Heretikse preaches the wisdom of man, saying:

Make the most of life on earth, because it will probably be the only one you get.

How, you ask, could any clergy blurt any such claptrap? It’s easy when the “clergy” have abandoned truth for my lies. Mr. Hendrikse? He doesn’t even believe “that God exists at all as a supernatural thing.”

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Hey, Mr. Hendrikse, why do you bother?

Really, why do you bother to wake up in the morning? If you are right, then all is futile. You are nothing more than an odd conglomeration of matter. Why should any other conglomeration of matter listen to you?

But Mr. Hendrikse does wake up, my servants and he does speak, and others do listen. And they listen to him spout stupid thoughts. How do I know? Because he wrote a book with a stupid title: “Believing in a Non-Existent God.”

And apparently he’s surrounded by hopelessly confused, lazy, stupid thinkers as well. When some “more traditionalist Christians” objected to his heresy,

. . . a special church meeting decided his views were too widely shared among church thinkers for him to be singled out.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Hey, never mind that I’ve won as soon as groups who don’t believe in God can be classified as “Christians,” just not the “more traditional” type. Never mind that I’ve won as soon as a “meeting” can “decide” right doctrine based on the number of people believing it. Never mind it all, my servants, just know that I’m winning on all fronts in Holland; someone let their finger out of the dike.

I’m winning, folks.

Orthodoxy by popularity. I love it.

Hey, if enough people believe a lie, is it still a lie?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

According to some lie-believer named Wim De Jong, Mr. Heretikse’s beliefs are okey dokey because:

Here you can believe what you want to think for yourself, what you really feel and believe is true.

Yes, and if you really feel it enough and believe it enough, it magically becomes true, right?

Hey, Mr. Lie-Belcher, if God does exist, does he cease to exist because Mr. Wimsy De Jong really feels he doesn’t exist?

Oh, I love to see my servants’ illogical, darkened thinking. It is really a badge of honor for me, and a stinging indictment of all true Christians in Holland.

The “churches” in Holland are “experimenting with the contents of the gospel” according to the BBC article because “traditional Christianity places God in too restricted a box.” And by getting God out of his “box” the “churches” in Amsterdam believe they will attract more people.

Important Messages

About me . . .

I've been around a long time. I head one of the largest kingdoms the world has ever known. From a humble start in which I persuaded 1/3 of God's creation to follow me, I've amassed a literal kingdom of followers through deceit, cunning, and, if I may say so, very clever deception. Most of my followers don't even believe in me, which makes it almost criminal for me to work my destruction anyway. Oh well. More surprisingly, are those who say they do believe in me, and still effectively do my will. I like to kill, steal, and destroy. In my spare time I walk to and fro about the earth seeking out whom I might devour, as well as tend to this blog, which contains my musings, my opinions, and my critical analysis.